14/88 and (more) alt-right losers

Poster by the name of "Terrence Allen" went full-retard over at Throne & Altar.

He posts -

Dear, Allah, where do I begin? I can picture this guy now, in a church, out of all the places, acting like a legit racist, in his mind puffing out his chest as he "stone faced" the Negroes and Coloreds. Did bring anti-septic to wash his hands with? His post strongly reminded me of the scene in Remember the Titans when Gerry Bertier was going to go play basketball with Julius Campbell to which Bertier's mother objected. Bertier responded that if she only got to know Campbell she wouldn't act this way. "I don't want to get to know him," the mother proclaimed, forcing her son to attend church instead.

I'm not sure if this guy's a Catholic, but it's something I'd expect some Southern Baptist to do. Even his name sorta screams "white guy with a Confederate flag and a white supremacist." Terrence Allen. Wow. Where is that Natalie Portman gif? Ah, here it is.

She's Jewish so that's some irony there.

Bonald, the headmaster of the site, I don't think is a racist, though his view of a monarchy has attracted some losers to his site - "thordaddy" (which other posters have verbally confronted him of his obsession with white nationalism, basically saying he's one annoying shit) and Terrence, Terrence being the worse of the two.

At first I thought Terrence was joking, but then he wrote "14/88." Immediately I thought this was strange and had to mean something, so I googled it. Apparently it's a strong indicator of a Neo-Nazi. There are white nationalists and then there are Neo-Nazis/racists. 14/88 should be your big clue on how to differentiate the two.

Terrence Allen is the type of person that anyone with half a mind should reject and condemn. He is a pimple on The Right's race and actually adds to the animosity towards the Confederate flag (I'm quite indifferent about it despite me living above the Mason-Dixie line) and Southerners. I am disappointed that Bonald did not say anything about Allen's post, but as I discovered it's all fair game.

Here he states (bold: my emphasis) -

The danger when Christians form an alliance with liberals is that Christianity will end up being redefined as the spiritual endorsement of liberalism.  Not every anti-Islamic conservative falls into this trap–Larry Auster, Lydia McGrew, and Alan Roebuck are good examples of conservatives who have sounded alarms against advancing Muhammedan hordes without falling into the Left.  From a traditionalist perspective, there’s nothing wrong with accusing Muslims of violating the natural law, being a false religion, or just being incompatible with the majority culture.  On the other hand, it is very easy to slip into the prejudices of the surrounding culture, and start criticizing Muslims for being insufficiently committed to free speech, gay rights, and public nudity.  The rule I would suggest is this:  before you criticize Muslims for something, ask yourself if the criticism would also apply to conservative Christians circa 1800.  If so, you’ve slipped into liberalism.  This danger is very real. 

Is Bolland alluding that Christians circa 1800 basically acted like Muslims, and that now they're "more advanced" aka more tolerant of such things? He outright said that Christians shouldn't condemn Muslims because that would be hypocritical, reaching back to a time whe

Bolland writes on his homepage

If you’ve always felt like there’s something wrong with women soldiers, open marriages, state-sponsored blasphemy, public nudity, and kindergarteners practicing putting condoms on bananas, but you felt that it is “irrational” or “intolerant” to criticize these things, guess what:  you’re not crazy.

In the great irony, Bolland himself slips into liberalism (or maybe I'm operating on a different definition of 'liberalism' than he is). To criticize such things is, as he puts is, "irrational" and "intolerant." What exactly would Bolland say about kindergartners putting condoms on bananas? I don't know. I suppose he'd just object to it but wouldn't actually object to it. He'd just shrug his shoulders and say, "If I were to criticize I'd slip into liberalism."

Like Vox Day, Bolland is not married, never was married and has no kids. I suppose the saving grace is that he isn't a prog and that he's a Catholic (a Catholic who things he can run the organization as if he holds an MBA from Harvard).

And, as expected, Bolland is a "no country"  type. Now, I can't say I despise "no country" types (the cousins of "global citizens") but I do have a decent amout of irritation with them. They're practically useless. Given his long and somewhat boring "how-I-became-a-reactionary" story no wonder he's never been married (he has expressed being socially awkward amongst the opposite sex, poor bastard).

With that said I don't feel bad for getting personal. If modern liberalism mocks (American) mainstream conservatism about "going back to the good old days" aka 1950s, or even the Bronze Age if we talk about the advancement of science, I think the world that Bolland wants, as one online poster puts it, is truly a "fantasyland." Bolland is a wannabe knight but doesn't have the balls to pick up a sword or even has the skill to make a mad banner to attach to a medieval herald trumpet.

An intellectual who doesn't have tenure (the man has a Phd), no kids and has never married. He isn't even published. Sigh.

But still, I enjoy Bolland's site and his words even if I disagree with them. His site is his "contribution" to society (though he'd probably rant that society is beyond saving) and I thank him for that.  Better be an alt-right loser than a prog.